City of Wheeler

City Council Meeting Stevie Burden, Mayor Heidi Stacks, Council President

February 19, 2019 – 7:00 p.m. Dave Bell, Councilor Jim King, Councilor

Dawn Sea Kahrs, Councilor Jay Verburg, Councilor

Juliet Hyams, City Manager

Wheeler City Hall 775 Nehalem Blvd. Wheeler, OR

The City of Wheeler is an equal opportunity provider

AGENDA

I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Mayor and Councilor Comments

IV. Consent Calendar – Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and may

be enacted by one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at the request of a Council Member. A. Additions or Deletions to Agenda B. Wheeler City Council Minutes of January 15, 2019...........................................1 C. Financial Reports for January 2019, emailed to Council 2/11/19 at 2:32 p.m.

V. Presentations, Guests, Announcements, and Correspondence

A. Presentations: None B. Guests: None C. Announcements: None D. Correspondence

• Manzanita Department of Public Safety January 2019……………………...6 • First Student letter to ODOT……………………………………………...…7

VI. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items - This allows the public to introduce items for

Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda.

VII. Committee Reports – These are Planning Commission, Parks Committee, Emergency Response Committee, or other ad hoc committee reports that may be called up by the City Council.

• Planning Commission a. Minutes for February 7, 2019 Planning Commission meeting……………....8

• Parks Committee a. Minutes for February 14, 2019 Parks Committee meeting…………………10

• Wheeler Citizens Emergency Preparedness Committee • Port of Nehalem

VIII. City Manager & Public Works Department Reports

a. City Manager………………………………………………………………...11

b. Public Works - none

IX. Public Hearings: None X. Executive Session: None XI. General Business – At the Mayor’s prerogative, comment time may be limited.

1. Old Business: a. Ordinance 2019-01, An Ordinance Establishing a Planning Commission for the City of Wheeler, Establishing Rules, and Repealing all Previous Planning Commission Ordinances & Hearing Procedures………………………………...22

2. New Business a. Oaths of Office……………………………………………………………...…34 b. Appointment of City Council President

c. Ordinance 2019-02, An Ordinance for Annexation of Property from the City Limits into the Urban Growth Boundary of Territory that Meets the Criteria of Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 222 City Boundary Changes; Mergers; Consolidations; Withdrawals Section 222.127 (2) by an Ordinance that Contains a Description of the Territory to be Annexed……………………………………..35 d. Emergency Preparedness Committee Application – Paul Knight…………….43 e. 2017 /2018 FY Audit

XII. Adjournment Documents, ordinances, and resolutions are available for inspection at City Hall. This meeting is scheduled to be held in a non-handicapped accessible location. Please notify City Manager if you need handicapped access and arrangements will be made to insure participation.

Wheeler Citizen Suggestions Please submit your ideas to improve our town, a City process, or other ideas to pursue.

Name: (Optional, if you want a response) Phone: (Optional, if you want a response) Suggestion(s):

Drop off at City Hall or Mail to PO Box 177 Wheeler, OR 97147

CITY OF WHEELER REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2019

Page 1 of 5

I. CALL TO ORDER : Council President, Heidi Stacks called the Wheeler City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., January 15, 2018 at Wheeler City Hall.

II. ROLL CALL :

Heidi Stacks, Dawn Sea Kahrs and Dave Bell Excused Absence: Mayor Stevie S. Burden, Jim King and Jay Verburg Public Present: Mike Anderson, Edith Rohde, Paul Knight, Jon Hull, Terrie Hull, Michael Glowa, Craig Stacks, Dave Thompson and Donna Morrow. Media Present: None

III. MAYOR AND COUNCILOR COMMENTS: None

IV. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Additions or Deletions to Agenda: Table “b” under New Business for February 2019 meeting as

there is not a quorum to vote, Heidi Stacks to recuse herself. 2. Wheeler City Council Minutes of December 18, 2018 3. Financial Reports for December 2018 Bell moved to adopt Consent Agenda as amended, Kahrs 2nd motion. All for the vote, 3-0.

V. PRESENTATIONS, GUESTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE: 1. Presentation: None 2. Guests: None 3. Announcements: None 4. Correspondence:

• Manzanita Department of Public Safety December 2018 Report • Email from Dave Larmouth Recology • OPB article about Oregon recycling

VI. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: A. Email read into record from Mark Nelson regarding short-term rentals B. Letter read into record from Jon Hull

VII. COMMITTEE REPORTS:

• Planning Commission – Minutes for January 3, 2019 Planning Commission meeting

• Parks Committee – Minutes for January 10, 2019 Parks Committee meeting

• Wheeler Citizens Emergency Preparedness Committee: Councilor Stacks provided an update

• Port of Nehalem: Councilor Bell provided and update

1

CITY OF WHEELER REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2019

Page 2 of 5

VIII. CITY MANAGER & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REPORT

City Manager Report Follow Up to Last Month’s Meeting • The white van that was parked by the liquor store belongs to a tenant above the store. She just bought the car and

had not yet registered as of December. Officer Mike Sims asked her to register it in a timely manner. I have not seen it now for several weeks.

• Recology contract: I wrote to Dave Larmouth of Recology to find out if they would provide curbside recycling in Wheeler. He said that they are working on providing it in Wheeler, Nehalem and Manzanita. See the attached email.

• Lori sent the MLK Day of Service proclamation to our neighboring cities. • As I mentioned last month, FEMA’s repairs to Hemlock St. are not holding up well. I will approach FEMA about

more work to Hemlock, but council can also update the natural hazards mitigation plan to add it as a pending action item. Sabrina Pearson suggests that FEMA should have created a “safe slope” on Hemlock’s north side, rather than a sheer drop off.

• Regarding safety improvements to school buses on highway 101, the Bus Barn has started turning left on Hemlock to drop off southbound elementary school children at the Handy Creek Bakery, eliminating the need for them to cross the highway. From there, the bus continues up Hemlock to First and returns to the highway on Spruce. Older children travelling south can cross 101 on their own, but are instructed to wait for the driver to signal to them when it’s safe. Furthermore, the Bus Barn plans to write to ODOT to request additional safety measures and would like our city council’s support. They will be sending me a letter with more detail.

• I researched nuisance ordinances in neighboring cities: Manzanita does not allow barking or roaming dogs, dangerous or wild animals, livestock or poultry. It further outlaws nuisances affecting public health, noise that disturbs the peace, discharging firearms and allowing property to deteriorate. Nehalem does not allow dangerous or dead animals, nuisances to public health, abandoned refrigerators, dangerous excavations, sidewalk defects, attractive nuisances, certain trees, certain fences, noxious vegetation, sidewalk snow and ice, discarded vehicles, and nuisances affecting public safety and the public peace. Cannon Beach prohibits derelict property and vacant buildings. They also impose conditions on keeping livestock, bees, poultry and other animals besides household pets.

• I researched short-term rental ordinances in Coos Bay, Coquille and Reedsport: Coos Bay I found no regulations for Coos Bay. Coquille Short-term vacation rentals must conform to all of the following criteria: • Vacation rentals rented for twenty-eight (28) or fewer days continuously, by the same tenant. • Where a business license is required to operate one or more short-term vacation rentals, the license application shall

identify all short-term rental properties under the same ownership or management, and shall provide the city with information regarding the name, address and telephone number of a contact person who can be on the vacation home rental site within four hours to respond to problems.

• A conditional use permit is required. • The vacation rental unit shall provide two off-street parking spaces (not in addition to those otherwise required for a

single-family dwelling). • All required parking shall be provided on the same lot as the vacation home rental unit. • All vacation home rentals shall have a maximum occupancy of one person per two hundred (200) square feet or not

more than sixteen (16) people, whichever is more restrictive. • All other requirements of the code as applicable to single-family dwellings shall apply.

2

CITY OF WHEELER REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2019

Page 3 of 5

Reedsport "Short-term rental" is defined as a dwelling unit, an accessory dwelling unit, or a room (or rooms) within a dwelling unit that is rented out for lodging for a period of less than thirty (30) days in length. A short-term rental is an accessory use to a primary residence and allowed as a conditional use permit, subject to these minimum requirements: A. The primary residence shall be occupied by the owner or operator for no less than two hundred seventy (270) days per calendar year. B. A short-term rental may be hosted (where the primary occupants are present on-site during the rental period) or un-hosted (where the primary occupants vacate the unit or site during the rental period). 1. For hosted rentals, one (1) parking space per two (2) guests is required in addition to the minimum residential parking requirement for the main dwelling on the property. 2. For un-hosted rentals, at least one (1) parking space per two (2) guests is required on site. C. Occupancy is limited to not more than six (6) guests per rental period. D. The property owner shall obtain a Short-Term Rental Operator's license and comply with the business licensing regulations. E. The property owner shall comply with the Transient Room Tax provisions. "Vacation rental" is defined as a dwelling unit that is rented out to a single party for a period of less than thirty (30) days in length where there are no primary occupants or where the residents who occupy the unit do so for less than two hundred seventy (270) days per year. A vacation rental is similar to a commercial lodging use. It is a primary use and is more commercial in nature than is a short-term rental. A. At least one (1) parking space per two (2) guests is required on site. B. Occupancy is limited to not more than eight (8) guests per rental period. C. The property owner shall obtain a Vacation Rental Operator's license and comply with the business licensing regulations. D. The property owner shall comply with the Transient Room Tax provisions. Outreach I met with Cynthia Alamillo, my counterpart in Manzanita, as well as her staff (minus Jerry Taylor). They do not intend to share a city planner with us; Cynthia does their land use, in consultation with Miller Nash. They suggest that I go on a ride along with police. Website I updated the website so it is now mobile compatible, has a Search bar and a link to Facebook. More to follow. Planning Commission Meeting, January 3, 2019 • The Planning Commission revised ordinance 2014-01, section 6, regarding how committee vacancies are addressed.

See your meeting packet. • Per their ordinance, the PC named its 2019 officers, as follows: President, Mike Anderson; VP, Dave Thompson;

Secretary, Doug Proctor. • The PC wants to do more work on its BLI before meeting with Lisa Phipps (DLCD) for a workshop. Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting: January 10, 2019 See attached minutes. Grants • I completed our FEMA Advance Assistance grant to daylight Gervais Creek on December 28. Angie Lane – the State

Hazard Mitigation Officer -- will review the grant and suggest any changes, then submit it to FEMA at the end of January. I’ve heard nothing from Angie yet. Let’s hope the shutdown ends soon. We obtained letters of support from: Congressman Kurt Schrader, Col-Pac, the Port of Tillamook Bay (2), Senator Betsy Johnson, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the North Coast Regional Solutions Center.

• I am also pursuing money from Business Oregon for the FEMA cost match and remaining engineering. If I made my

3

CITY OF WHEELER REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2019

Page 4 of 5

case for Wheeler being a “small and impoverished” community, our match will be 10 percent. If not, it will be 25 percent.

• Other grant applications on the horizon include SCA, OEM, USDA, OWEB and Tillamook Tourism. Attachments • Email from Dave Larmouth at Recology, regarding curbside recycling. • OPB article about Oregon recycling rates. • Email from Mark Nelson, regarding short-term rentals. • Manzanita Department of Public Safety December report. • Terrie Hull’s volunteer application for the Parks Committee. I wish everyone a happy 2019! Public Works Report: Water: The reservoirs are scheduled to be cleaned and inspected by the LiquiVision Diving Co. on Wednesday the 16th of January. Staff will be prepping for this visit prior to their arrival and will be involved in maintaining water levels in the reservoirs during the inspection. Staff has been asked to be available throughout the process. Staff will be replacing water meters and working on updating mapping for the entire water system.

Storm Water: Regular maintenance and monitoring as needed through the winter’s rains.

Streets: regular maintenance and debris removal as needed. Staff has been monitoring Hemlock Street; there is movement with cracks appearing in the pavement between 4th and 5th Street. The last FEMA project on Hemlock Street seems to be failing and will need attention to provide stability to the steep embankment on the north side of the street. There is a four inch water main that runs through this slide area endangered by this movement. Staff has had some conversation with local contractors for suggestions to stabilize this area but believes that engineering will be needed for proper remedies.

Parks: No projects scheduled.

City Planner Report: none IX. PUBLIC HEARING: None

X. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None

XI. GENERAL BUSINESS: 1. Old Business:

a. Sign Ordinance Discussion: Mike Anderson, Planning Commission President: Council asked Planning Commission to review Sign Ordinance for recommendations on any changes. At this time, Planning Commission isn’t seeing anything they would change but looking for Council to find solutions on how to eliminate local businesses using Sandwich Boards (A-boards) due to potential accidents and they are not allowed. Council and Planning Commission had a joint meeting held at the Salmonberry Saloon

4

CITY OF WHEELER REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2019

Page 5 of 5

regarding a presentation for new Wayfinding Signage. City Manager to contact Nan Devlin with Tillamook County Tourism or the company that makes the signage to see if there is any recommendations for signage they have or that other Cities have done to eliminate the A-boards and provide directions to all businesses (even off the beaten path), once a solution can be found, Planning Commission can provide a recommendation on how to write the wayfinding signage in to an updated Sign Ordinance.

1. New Business: a. Oath of Office: Stacks read the Oath of Office in its entirety and swore in Council Member, Dawn Sea Kahrs. Jim King and Jay Verburg will take Oath of Office at February 2019 Council meeting.

b. Appointment of City Council President: Table to February 2019 City Council meeting

c. Planning Commission revisions to 2019-01 (aka 2014-01): Planning Commission By-Laws were updated in 2014-01 with Council review and recommendation but were never completed. Due to both Planning Commission and City Council having newer members, Planning Commission has reviewed and made minor changes to what was supposed to be amended and approved, but final adoption never took place. Office Manager will email City Council updated Ordinance 2019-01 along with updated Public Hearing Procedures to Council again for review and recommendation and pass along to Planning Commission by their next meeting. If there are any Council changes recommended, Planning Commission will present corrections and start the adoption process to complete the Ordinance 2019-01.

d. Emergency Preparedness Committee application – Steve Fulmer: Bell moved to accept the application submitted Stacks 2nd motion. All for the vote, 3-0.

e. Parks & Recreation Committee application: Terrie Hull: Kahrs moved to accept the application submitted Stacks 2nd motion. All for the vote, 3-0.

f. Parks & Recreation Committee application: Donna Morrow: Bell moved to accept the application submitted stacks 2nd motion. All for the vote, 3-0.

XII. ADJOURNMENT:

____________________________ ______________________________ Stevie S. Burden, Mayor Juliet Hyams, City Manager

Lori Rieger, Transcriber

5

Mon Year Mon Year Mon Year Mon Year Mon Year Mon YearPERSON CRIMES PERSON OTHERHomicide Death NaturalKidnap Suicide/AttemptSexual Assault Missing / Lost 1 1Assault Simple RunawayAssault Serious DrowningAssault/Police Officer ARRESTDomestic Disturbance Criminal 2 2 1Disorderly Conduct WarrantResisting Arrest DetoxMenacing POHHarassment OTHEREscape Loss/Found Property 5 5Reckless Endangering Residential Checks 18 18 65 1Weapon Medical Assist 1 1 1 3 3 2 1

Fire Dept. Assist 2 2 1PROPERTY CRIMES Alarms 1 1 10 1 1 1Burglary Residence Unfounded 1 1Burglary Business Open Window/Door 3 3 3 1 1Attempted Burglary Public Assist 14 14 17 3 3 5 2 2 2Prowler 1 1 Other 5 5 29 3 3 1 2 2 3ArsonReckless BurningCriminal Mischief 1 1TheftUnauth Use Veh No Camp Permit DispUnlawful Entry Veh Camping Proh. AreaRobbery No Day Use Permit 7 7 5Trespass 1 1 Viol. Posted Parking 1 1 1Littering Handicap ParkingFraud Traffic ViolationNSF Check General Reg Viol. 5Forgery 2 Search & Rescue 1 1OTHER OFF/CRIMES Ranger AssistCity Ordinance 8 8 8 VandalismAnimal Complaint 1 1 1 LitterFish and Game 1 Minor in PossessionCivil 3 Furnishing AlcoholDrug/Liquor Security Checks 42 42 64 31 31 47Misuse/ Incom 911 CrimesFireworks Other 2 2 1 3 3 3Susp. Circumstances 1 1 2 2 1 1 ArrestDisturbance 1 1

TRAFFIC INCIDENTSAccidents 1 1 Law Assist 2 4 4 3 16 16 17Warnings 11 11 30 7 7 21 16 16 19Citations 2 1 1 7 15 15 16Crimes 2 2Parking Warnings 5 5 3Parking Citations 1 1 1Abandoned Vehicles 1 1 1 1Vehicle(s) Towed

MANZANITA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETYJanuary 2019 REPORT

Manz Whe Manz Whe

OREGON STATE PARKS REPORT

Nehalem Oswald

________________________ 02/05/2019Erik Harth, Police Chief Date

Wheeler County

Neh Neh

Nehalem

18todate

18todate

18todate

18todate

18todate

18todate

18todate

18todate

6

7

WHEELER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 3, 2019

1. Call to Order: 6:05 p.m. 2. Administration:

a. Roll Call: Mike Anderson, Phil Ordway, Chantelle Hylton, Doug Proctor and Terri Michelsen. Staff Present: Juliet Hyams, City Manager

Excused Absences: David Thompson b. Comments: Planning Commission Minutes for January 3, 2019: Michelson moved to accept the minutes as submitted, Proctor 2nd motion. All for the vote, 5-0. c. Correspondence: - Discussion on Ayer’s building application - Discussion on Ulbricht application - Discussion on 625 and 675 Nehalem Blvd, Wheeler. City Manager to send a nuisance complaint to owner of 675 Nehalem Blvd due to a citizen complaint received.

d. Visitors: None e. Citizen Initiated Discussion Topics: f. Hazard Mitigation Plan: None g. Emergency Response Plan: None h. Non-Agenda Items: None 3. Public Hearing: None 4. Unfinished Business: a. Planning Commission Bylaws – Ordinance 2019-01: - Page 6 under “D”, change the work “property” to “properly”

- Ordinance 2019-01 uses “Chairman” and “Vice Chair”, change Public Hearing notice to specify the same verbiage.

Ordway moved to send Ordinance 2019-01 as amended to City Council for adoption, Proctor 2nd motion. All for the vote, 5-0. b. Buildable Lands Inventory: Discussion on wanting to get this the project started up again and will work on finding out the status where everyone left off.

8

5. New Business: a. What requirements must be met to qualify for “Special Permit” in the GC Zone under Section 4.020, #12 and #13: City received a request for approval on a permit that would require “special permit” under the Commercial Zone. Staff asked Planning Commission President of what that would and/or should entail. Planning Commission consensus for “Special Permit” under Section 4.020, #12 and13 under the GC Zone is the following: Approved, licensed and inspected by the Tillamook County Community Health Centers Meets all ODOT requirements Does not cause interference with visual for traffic Does not restrict sidewalk access Does not restrict existing parking

6. Land Use Trainings, Upcoming Meetings, Comments: a. Land Use Trainings: None b. Upcoming Meetings

1. Next Planning Commission Meeting: March 7, 2019 at 6:00 p.m.

Note time change for winter meetings. Summer meetings will return to 7:00 p.m.

c. Planning Commission Comments: None d. City Manager Comments: City Manager will send follow up emails on items discussed. e. City Staff Comments: None f. City Planner Comments: None

7. Adjournment: 7:18 p.m. _______________________________________ Mike Anderson, Planning Commission President _______________________________________ ATTEST: Juliet Hyams, City Manager

9

Wheeler Parks & Recreation Committee

Meeting Minutes 2/14/19 1. Call to order at 10:03. PRESENT: Becky Elder, Jan Bell, Terri Michelsen, Donna Morrow, Terrie Hull.

ABSENT: Joe V., Joe Balden, Juliet Hyams. 2. Administration: Volunteer time sheets were updated. Minutes from Jan. 10, 2019 meeting were

approved as submitted. No announcements or recognitions. Work Party Status: it has been too cold and wet to do much. We decided to cancel work parties in the future if temperature is below 40 deg.

3. OLD BUSINESS:

- Purchasing roses for WF Park: Terri will call three nurseries to see possible cost and availability and email answers to the committee. She will try to visit one of them on March 10 and possibly buy some.

- Removal of dead fir tree at WF Park and removal of broken cement bench: will ask Joe V. when he returns to work when the removals will happen.

4. NEW BUSINESS: - See attached spreadsheet for updated Public Works Support Request. This outlines the annual labor and cost requirements for the three city parks.

- OPRD discussion: We had great a discussion of park improvements that could be done with grant money. In priority: UPPER PARK: Redo playground equipment and surface (see grant-funded playground in Baker City, OR);

- build covered viewing platform (8x12’ floor with long bench) on top of berm (with ramp access on one side and steps on the other);

- permanent restroom (see attached photo of Tillamook’s newest);

- paved perimeter path with or without exercise stations;

- permanent covered BBQ/eating area;

- improved access (steps or paved) from Hall Street to Upper Park.

WATERFRONT PARK: Improved graphics of view, wildlife;

- viewing gazebo (like the painting).

NOTE: Donna Morrow and Terrie Hull are willing to work with Juliet to research costs or details for grant.

Meeting adjourned at 11:06 a.m. Next meeting: March 14, 2019

Submitted by Terri Michelsen, secretary

10

To: Wheeler City Council From: Juliet Hyams, Wheeler City Manager Date: February 18, 2019 Subj.: monthly report Followup from January’s Meeting Nan Devlin, of the Tillamook County Tourism Department, says that directional signs could replace the A-boards on our sidewalks. They would be generic; that is, rather than Rising Star Café, it would say Restaurant. The design team were supposed to visit me during the week of February 11, but snow in Seattle forced them to cancel their trip. The OPDR grant announcement was redistributed to the Parks Committee. Its first deadline is April 1, with two more chances in May. Complaint about 675 Nehalem Blvd. Neighbors have complained about rats and unused vehicles behind 675 and 625 Nehalem Blvd., which I have noticed too. I found correspondence between Angela Oslund to Greg Mott last September, so I wrote back to Mr. Mott to continue the conversation. Health District The Nehalem Bay Health District is conducting strategic planning for its organization, per the schedule below. I attended one of two sessions and suggested that their site could accommodate a new city hall. Their State of the Community Report is online and will be enhanced to reflect a January board retreat. You can also see presentations from the two strategic planning sessions.

11

Spruce Caboose The Port of Tillamook Bay approached us with a proposal to build refurbished cabooses for short-term rental, on railroad settings on leased property owned by Port of Tillamook Bay (POTB). Two of the sites are in Wheeler, including tax lot 1390 near Depot Rd. and the Wheeler run-around track. The third location is adjacent to tax lot 104, near Jetty Creek, just south of Jetty Fishery Marina. I will attend a meeting about it on February 13. More to follow… Garden Plot Requests We have more requests for garden plots than we can accommodate. I met with Betsy Chase, Paul Knight and Leigh Ann Hoffhines, Communications Manager for the Rinehart Clinic. We discussed issues and options for the garden, including subdividing existing plots. Should we decide to expand the garden, I’m confident I could get lumber donated by Stimson Lumber. SPIRE grant A SPIRE grant is available for emergency response equipment. Gordon McCraw, of the Tillamook County Sheriff’s office, is trying to coordinate applications to avoid redundancies. The deadline is March 1. Stimson Lumber

Jacob Hilger, Coast Reforestation Manager with Stimson Lumber, met with Joe and me on January 23. He wanted to address fears about herbicides and provided the attached article. I mentioned to him the following:

12

• We would like to use Stimson’s roads as emergency routes, but had no keys. He has since brought me a master key to every gate they have on the coast. They will also provide a lock box where we can store copies of the key.

• He also provided maps of Stimson’s ownership behind Wheeler, with the easement and main travel routes highlighted. This map is geo-referenced so it can work with Avenza Maps for navigation. If Wheeler were cut off from the south and needed the mainlines for emergency access Stimson, they will work with us. The Jetty Creek route passes through property owned by Green Wood.

• He invited Joe, me and any of city council to tour Stimson’s property and discuss forestry, etc. Please let me know if you’d like to attend. It will be sometime in April.

• Stimson has a philanthropy arm. I think I could tie some of our infrastructure needs to their funding areas. He’s willing to take an idea to their board, but I’d need to have a project description ready for him. If we’re going to shop around some big ideas, like a new city hall, we need a strong marketing piece.

E-prep and Yellow Radio training and practice I received Yellow Radio training from Paul Knight and participated in several drills. I may not be able to continue, however, now that I’ve moved to Cannon Beach. Salmonberry Trail I attended a meeting about the Trail, with representatives from the Port of Tillamook Bay and the towns of Rockaway, Garibaldi and Nehalem. The Salmonberry Trail Intergovernmental Agency (STIA) is the successor to the Salmonberry Coalition and the managing agency of the Salmonberry Trail. It is restructuring and raising money. I’m not clear what the meeting was for, except to raise awareness and reconnect with cities on the trail. I told them I would update council to keep it on our radar. Rockaway’s planner, Cassandra Dobson, followed up with a Concept Plan, the Coastal Segment Plan, and the Economic and Health Benefits report. More to follow… Grants Training and Homework Where to begin? I’ve attended two sessions of a four-day grants training at Tillamook Bay Community College, at bargain at $95. It’s the most in-depth grants training I’ve received. See attachments. We are completing homework to define a grants strategy and project. At the last session, I met one-on-one with Nan Devlin, Tourism Director of Visit Tillamook Coast. They offer a number of grants; I suggested some for a better website platform or Wordpress template and new computers. She had some suggestions about TLTs. At another council meeting, I’d like to review our website and social media for your input. At the grants training, I acquired a volunteer to work with me researching grants. Her name is

13

Cara and she lives in Nehalem; bright, friendly and eager to learn. We can leverage her hours as an in-kind donation for grants. I also got to know Michelle Jenk, Tillamook County Wellness Coordinator. She is anticipating receiving an EPA wellness grant, in which she earmarked money for Wheeler. I will talk to her more next month. OCOT/DLCD/TGM This grant requires a pre-application by February 28. It supports transportation, land use and related efforts and might complement the wellness money. FEMA On January 25, our FEMA grant for Gervais Creek was submitted to FEMA (by the OEM); it is the only grant in its category (Advance Assistance) to be submitted by Oregon. Business Oregon is providing a $20000 match. We will know if it’s funded in April or May. Sabrina My relationship with Sabrina is developing well; she copies me on all of her Wheeler correspondence so I can support her and Lori. Technology

• As I mentioned earlier, I have been slowly updating the website. I finally got admin rights to the Facebook page and set up an Instagram account.

• We need new computers – which were budgeted for last year – and some sort of file sharing system.

Water Joe noticed some drinking water violations, due to water management in Manzanita. Apparently those have been resolved; their city manager, Cynthia Alamillo, sent me the attached report. On the Horizon

• Budget training through the League of Oregon Cities, February 14. • Salmonberry Trail and Spruce Caboose meetings, February 13. • Rinehart Clinic reception for its new CEO, Gail Nelson, February 28. • Grant training, session 3, February 21. • Meeting to discuss community opinions of land trusts and land conservation, North

14

Coast Land Conservancy, date TBD. • Meeting with Terre Cooper, the new Director of Economic Development Council of Tillamook

County and maybe Stevie, date TBD. • Bott’s Marsh application report, February 18.

Attachments:

• Email from Stimson Lumber, dated January 30, 2019 • Drinking water report from Manzanita • Glyphosate Vs. Caffeine: Acute and Chronic Toxicity Assessments Explained

15

16

17

18

Glyphosate Vs. Caffeine: Acute and Chronic Toxicity Assessments Explained

April 13, 2017 Guest Authors

GUEST AUTHOR:GUEST AUTHOR: Alison Bernstein, PhD is a neuroscientist, who studies the role of epigenetics and environmental exposures in Parkinson’s disease. Follow her on FacebookFacebook and G+G+, where she writes as “Mommy PhD”, and on Twitter @mommyphd2@mommyphd2.

Article length: 2800 words – 12-15 minute read.

Fear of chemicals in our food has taken on an outsized role in the food discussion. Too much of the debate have become … let’s say – abit light on the facts and long on emotion. While these are important conversations to have, confusion and misinformation about theseissues abound as sound bites are traded as evidence for each “side” and everyone talks past each other.Whether it’s fear of additives inprocessed food or pesticides used in growing crops, too many people are needlessly wondering if we are slowly poisoning ourselves.This has come to overshadow many useful innovations.

Much of this problem arises from a general misunderstanding of the science of toxicity,. It’s been especially pronounced in the debatearound the herbicide RoundUp (glyphosate). Here I’d like to take this opportunity to sort out LD50, a measure of toxicity has been thrown around in thesediscussion more than is helpful. We are going to work through what it tells us and what it doesn’t tell us. Once we’ve covered LD50, the measure of acutetoxicity, we’ll sort through the various metrics for assessing chronic toxicity.What is an LD50?

Let’s get something straight about LD50 – it is a measure of ACUTE toxicity. That is, LD50 is relevant for accidents, murders or suicides.

An LD50, or the median Lethal Dose, and the related LC50 (median lethal concentration, for inhalation rather than ingestion) are measures of acute toxicityonly. Acute toxicity relates to adverse effects that occur after a single exposure or multiple exposures within a day, and effects that manifest immediately orwithin two weeks of the exposure. The LD50 is determined experimentally, usually with rats or mice. It is single acute dose that will kill 50% of a populationgiven that dose. If you have a test population of 100 rats, it is the dose found to be sufficient to kill 50 of them. Likewise, the LD50 for humans is the dosage of acompound estimated that would kill 50 out of 100.

LD50s tell us about risk in cases where someone is exposed to a large amount of a chemical in a short amount of time. In other words: accidents, murders orsuicides.

Charts like this get bandied about more often than they should. While it will come as a surprise to most people that it takes less aspirin, Advil or even apple cider vinegar to poison themselves than RoundUp, that’s not really what people are worried about. And acute toxicity is a poor proxy for predicting chronic effects.

Most real human exposures are not acutely lethal but have other, long-term or chronic, effects that may or may not be toxic. Thus, LD50s are not very usefulwhen considering health effects of the large majority of human exposures.

Despite their lack of usefulness in describing chronic toxicity, as noted above, charts comparing LD50s are inevitable in almost every comment thread on theinternet about chronic toxicity, lately in regards to glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup. People are generally not concerned aboutpoisonings – rather they are worried about increased risk of cancer and other long term health risks. LD50 is the wrong measure for discussions of chronictoxicity.Measures of chronic toxicity

Chronic toxicity relates to adverse effects caused by long term exposures. These are not necessarily measured in lethality, rather in non-lethal yet still adverseeffects on health. Effects such as increased risk of disease, changes in body weight, behavioral changes, or reproductive effects. Instead of LD50, the propermeasures to compare chronic toxicity are:

• No Observed Adverse Effect Levels (NOAEL)• Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels (LOAEL)• Reference Doses (RfD)

These are the numbers that the EPA uses to set tolerances (maximum residue limits) for all pesticides approved for use in the US on domestic and importedfood. Keep in mind, the LOWER the number, the HIGHER the toxicity.

Acute toxicityAcute toxicity: adverse effects that occur after a single exposure or multiple exposures within a day, usually within two weeks of the exposure

Chronic toxicityChronic toxicity: adverse effects that occur as a result of long term exposure, includes non-lethal but adverse health effects

Adverse health effects: Adverse health effects: a change in bodily function that may contribute to illness or death

LDLD5050 (Median Lethal Dose): the experimentally determined single acute dose that kills 50% :of a population given that dose

NOAEL (NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level): the highest level at which no increase in the frequency or severity of adverse effects is observed

LOAEL LOAEL (Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level): the lowest dose that has been tested or observed to have an adverse effect

RfD RfD (Reference Dose): an estimate of the daily exposure to humans that is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious effects throughout the entire lifetime.

ToleranceTolerance: the maximum amount of pesticide residue safely allowed in or on human food or animal feed and is determined with a particular focus on protecting vulnerable populations, such as infants and children. This is typically set at the RfD

The first step in determining the Reference Dose is to identify the NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level). All existing data regarding the toxicity of thepesticide are reviewed and evaluated to identify the NOAEL. Sometimes, data is incomplete and a NOAEL has not been established experimentally orepidemiologically. In such a case, the LOAEL is used.

http://fafdl.org/blog/2017/04/13/glyphosate-vs-caffeine-acute-and-chronic-toxicity-assessments-explained/Created with PrintWhatYouLike.com19

Calculating LD50 means only one of you is going home. Photo by Jason Snyder | Flickr | Creative Commons license 2.0

If LOAEL is used, the second step is an extrapolation to estimate the NOAEL.The extrapolation step is based on the toxicity of the pesticide and its breakdownproducts, how much and how often the pesticide is applied, and how much of the pesticide remains in the food by the time it is marketed and prepared.

Next, the NOAEL and LOAEL are divided by uncertainty factors (UF) to determine the reference dose. The UFs are not arbitrary and are deliberately chosenbased on the strength and quality of the data. Projecting the health impacts for humans based on animal studies creates some uncertainty. That uncertainty isaccounted for by taking the dose observed to produce an adverse effect in the animal model and dividing it further by an appropriate factor. Other variablesthat insert uncertainty are accounted for through multiplication of UFs rather than addition in order to arrive at a cautious estimate based on the availableevidence. When taking account of two 10-fold UFs, they are multiplied 10 x 10 to produce a total UF of 100. Factors considered in calculated UFs include:

• Variability within the human population: a 10-fold UF is used when extrapolating from studies of prolonged exposure in healthy humans• Extrapolation from animal studies: a 10-fold UF is used when extrapolating from results on experimental animals• Extrapolating from non-chronic data: an additional 10-fold UF is applied when data is for less than chronic exposures

Additional modifying factors (MFs) can be applied based on scientific uncertainties based on factors other than the three factors described above, including anymissing data, the number of species tested, the number of subjects, etc. These MFs are at the discretion of the scientists performing the risk assessment andare often the source of differences between tolerances set by different agencies and often arise from different views on risk tolerance.

[Please consider supporting Food and Farm Discussion Lab with an [Please consider supporting Food and Farm Discussion Lab with an ongoing contribution of $1, $2, $3, $5 or $10 a monthongoing contribution of $1, $2, $3, $5 or $10 a month on Patreon. Or make a one time on Patreon. Or make a one time donation via PayPaldonation via PayPal. ]. ]

Let’s consider this sample calculation from the EPA.

Say that we have a NOAEL established in a 90-day subchronic oral study of 5 mg/kg/day in 250 rats per dose group. That is, rats fed 5 mg per kg per day for 90show no effect, but a higher dose would show a harmful effect.

Calculate the UF by multiplying: 10 (extrapolating to human from animal) x 10 (accounting for human variability) x 10 (subchronic dosing) = 1,000

Add a modifying factor (0.8) to account for the large number of animals per dose group. Note that this factor makes the UF smaller because a large study enables scientists to identify smaller effects.

UF x MF: 1,000 x 0.8 = 800.

Reference dose = NOAEL/(UF x MF) = 5 mg/kg/day ÷ 800 = 0.006 mg/kg/day

If the scientists observe no effect in rats at 5 mg/kg/day, we calculate a reference dose (RfD) of 0.006 mg/kg/day for humans. That’s the highest dose at whichscientists are confident that we would see zero effect on humans for daily consumption over a lifetime. If 5 mg produces no effect in rats, it’s reasonable thattaking that amount and dividing by 800 will give us a dose that should pose no problems for humans.

For more details, read about how the EPA assesses risk and calculates RfDs and tolerances.

The final piece of a risk assessment is determining or estimating the level of exposure and comparing that to the RfDs. This is what dictates the kind ofregulatory response required for a given chemical. For example, a chemical where the expected exposure of an average person is many orders of magnitudebelow the RfD would trigger a very different response than for a chemical where exposure is above the RfD.

There are current questions in risk assessment: what level of risk should trigger a regulatory response and if the RfDs are conservative enough (meaning shouldwe divide by larger uncertainty factors), for example.

To illustrate this method and the types of research used to arrive at these conclusions, I’d like to walk through calculations of references doses for caffeine andglyphosate.Oral RfD for caffeine

This review of the toxicity and exposure data on caffeine, carried out by scientists at Health Canada in 2003, determined the LOAEL of caffeine for various groups ofpeople (Nawrot 2003). The study cites over 700 references to previous studies on the biological effects of caffeine consumption in humans and animals, in chronic andsubchronic models, and with a variety of endpoints including general toxicity, cardiovascular effects, effects on bones and calcium homeostasis, mutagenicity,reproductive health and effects on human behavior. When inconsistencies are reported from the body of literature, the review addresses possible sources ofthose discrepancies and incorporates these inconsistencies into estimating a conservative LOAEL.

The LOAELs reported in this review for various groups of people were: Group LOAEL Daily intake

Healthy adults 6 mg/kg/day ~400 mg for a 65 kg/~140 lb person

Pregnant women or women who may become pregnant 4.6 mg/kg/day ~300 mg for a 65 kg/~140 lb person

Children 2.5 mg/kg/day 125 mg of a 25 kg/~50 lb child

In this 2016 paper, written by a scientific consulting firm that assists municipal, private and federal agencies, oral reference doses for caffeine were calculated basedon the above LOAELs (Sorell 2016). The RfDs were calculated by dividing the lowest LOAEL (for kids) by a UF of 1000. The UFs included were: 10 to extrapolate from acuteto chronic, 10 to extrapolate from subchronic to chronic and 10 to account for variability in sensitivity within the population.

2.5 ÷ 1000 = 0.0025 mg/kg/day

How much is 0.0025 milligrams/kilogram/day? This is 2.5 MICROgrams of caffeine per kilogram of your own bodyweight, daily. What does this mean in real life?

If you drink a tall coffee from Starbucks, you take in about 260 mg of caffeine. If you are brewing coffee at home,it might be as low as 50 mg. A good rule of thumb is 100 mg of caffeine per 8 ounces (a small at most places is 12ounces though). You can look up how much caffeine is in your favorite drink on this Mayo Clinic website.

I typically have 2 cups of coffee day. If the kids woke up in the middle of the night, I have a deadline at work, or Ispent too much time in a discussion on my Facebook page, that number will be more. More than I’d care toadmit. This means that per day, I am taking in at least 100 mg of caffeine. I weigh about 60 kg. Using the mostconservative RfD, my daily intake should be no higher than 0.0025 x 60 = 0.15 mg.

My actual intake of 100 mg is at least 666 times higher than the most conservative RfD estimate. Even if I use theleast conservative number available, the LOAEL for “healthy adults”, my intake is still at least 16 times higher. Thisis not an atypical level of caffeine exposure, yet most of us are not concerned about this level of exposure. I, andmost people I know, consider this a tolerable risk.Oral RfD for glyphosate

RfDs (analogous to ADIs for acceptable daily intake in the EU) for glyphosate have been established in 2013 bythe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the US and in 2015 by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the EU. All data used for the EFSA assessment has beenmade publicly available.

The paper, entitled “Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate”, cites over 30 other summaries and reports developed by EFSA, other EUregulatory agencies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and UN committees. The

assessment also considered studies submitted by the applicants as is required by law, as well as all published studies for a total of over 6000 pages ofdocuments. The final paper even points out that: “The glyphosate dossier consists of an exceptionally large database, therefore the toxicological evaluationadopted by the RMS (rapporteur Member State) and agreed during the peer review rely on a magnitude of valid studies rather than on one ‘key study’ for each

http://fafdl.org/blog/2017/04/13/glyphosate-vs-caffeine-acute-and-chronic-toxicity-assessments-explained/Created with PrintWhatYouLike.com20

endpoint.”

Basing these decisions on many studies, as was described for caffeine, helps to provide confidence in the calculations, especially when the studies are inagreement. Such a large body of research also helps identify where gaps in knowledge exist and this review found specific gaps for certain ecological measures,but not for human toxicity.

We cannot discuss this process without discussing the elephant in the room. This dossier on glyphosate does include studies from Monsanto. There are a fewimportant points regarding this. Funding by industry and studies carried out by industry have inherent conflicts of interest. However, as I have written aboutpreviously, conflicts of interest themselves are not a form of research misconduct.

Conflicts of interests may lead to bias that produces research misconduct. This is why disclosures of conflicts of interest and scrutiny of the data,experimental design and scientific process is so important. We can look at the science itself to see if research misconduct has occurred or if bias hasinfluenced the interpretation of the results. When the committee reviewed the data, they found that the studies from Monsanto are largely in agreement withstudies from other sources, demonstrating that, in this case, there does not appear to be any research misconduct.

The EFSA review established an overall long term NOAEL in animals of 100 mg/kg/day for chronic exposures, found no genotoxic potential and no evidence ofcarcinogenicity. The only evidence for carcinogenicity in animal studies was at doses that exceeded the limit dose of 1000 mg/kg/day (this is a high upper limit ofdoses considered in risk assessments). *

It bears mentioning here that IARC concluded something different than EFSA and nearly every other scientific agency on this. IARC conducted a hazard assessment rather than a riskassessment. That is, they looked at whether it was possible for glyphosate to cause cancer at some potential level of exposure rather than at real world exposure levels.

This discrepancy has been extensively dissected elsewhere (start here, here and here and the watch this video from the University of Michigan to explain the differencebetween hazard and risk). In addition, this calculation is just one aspect of the questions that the public has regarding glyphosate. Many of these questionsabout glyphosate have addressed in detail here.

As with caffeine, the RfD is calculated from the lowest determined NOAEL. For glyphosate, EFSA based the RfD calculation on the lower NOAEL for maternal anddevelopmental toxicity. Here, the NOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day is divided by an uncertainty factor of 100 to calculate an RfD of 0.5 mg/kg/day**. As a comparison, theEPA has set an RfD of 0.1 mg/kg/day.

We can do the same type of calculation we did above for caffeine to see how this RfD relates to actual exposure data. Agricultural exposures are the highest realworld exposures that arise from normal use (i.e. not accidents, murders or suicides).

If we look at the Farm Family Exposure Study data summary (part of the Agricultural Health Study), 60% of pesticide applicators in the study had detectable levels of glyphosate in theirurine and the average urine level for was 3.2 parts per billion (ppb). Average urine levels for spouses and children of applicators was less than 1 part per billionwith only 4% and 12%, respectively, of each group having detectable exposures.

Actual exposure levels were estimated from these urine levels in t his peer reviewed paper. The average exposure of 3.2 ppb for applicators corresponds to a dose of 0.1% ofthe RfD. Even the highest urine level of 223 ppb reported in the Farm Family Exposure Study corresponds to be only 4% of the RfD. This is equivalent to 0.004mg/kg/day rather than the RfD of 0.1 mg/kg/day for the most highly exposed individual who didn’t take appropriate safety precautions.

Other reports, such as this one, have measured urine levels in people whose only exposures are dietary, in an effort to gauge dietary exposure levels in non-pesticide applicators. The average urine levels in this study were 0.2 ppb, with a maximum level of 1.82 ppb. Despite methodological concerns and the fact thatthis report has not been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, the levels can be informative. Using the highest level detected, the estimated dietaryexposure is only 0.1% of the EFSA RfD (equivalent to 0.5% of the EPA RfD).

Using even the highest estimates of exposures, pesticide applicators are exposed to levels of glyphosate that are a very small percentage of the safe limits.Consumers are exposed to much lower levels. Measures across other studies of agriculture and dietary exposures were consistent with these results.Conclusions

We started this discussion with the premise that RfDs, not LD50s, are the appropriate comparison for chronic toxicity. Using RfDs, how do caffeine andglyphosate compare? Keeping in mind, the LOWER the number, the HIGHER the toxicity.

EPA RfD for glyphosate: 0.1 mg/kg/dayEPA RfD for caffeine: 0.0025 mg/kg/day0.1 ÷ 0.0025 = 40

This means that caffeine is 40 times more toxic than glyphosate. However, this is only a useful number if we know our typical exposures. The exposurenumbers above show that we don’t give a second thought to consuming caffeine at levels hundreds of times higher than the oral RfD, but are simultaneouslyworried about exposures to glyphosate that are 100 times lower than the RfD. In discussions of toxicity, we must use the correct data to back up our points tostep outside the cycle of misinformation.

* They also established a NOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day for maternal and developmental toxicity. Glyphosate is readily degraded by soil microbes toaminomethylphosphonic acid or AMPA, so the toxicity of AMPA was also considered. The panel concluded that AMPA has a similar toxicological profile.

** Note: The EFSA uses the term acceptable daily intake, or ADI, instead of RfD, but these are essentially the same thing. Both represent the daily exposure tohumans that is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious effects throughout the entire lifetime.ADDENDUM (September 5, 2018)

While I love to see that this piece has been widely read since it was published, I have seen it used to support the very arguments that it was meant to critique.Because of this observation, I’d like to clarify a few points.

• This piece began from a frustration at the confusion over chronic and acute toxicity metrics being used interchangeably. When consumers express concernover chronic toxicity, science advocates often cite acute toxicity metrics. On the other side, when science advocates talk about chronic toxicity, anti-chemicalactivists challenge them to drink a glass of [insert chemical here], which would be an experiment in acute toxicity, but tells us nothing about chronic toxicity.

• The main purpose of this piece is to define measures of acute and chronic toxicity, explain how those are calculated and used, and explain how regulatoryagencies currently use these metrics to determine “safe” levels. (Safe is in quotes because safety and risk are always relative.) It is not an exploration of what level of riskshould trigger regulation, which is a related, but separate, issue.

• There are some major differences between glyphosate and caffeine that make comparing their toxicity an apples-to-oranges comparison. The adverse effectsfor caffeine include things that some would classify as desired effects (you take caffeine to stay awake and thus report sleeplessness). A wider range of verysubtle effects are used, which drives these metrics down for caffeine. Generally, when you drink caffeine, you WANT these effects but here they are consideredto be toxic effects. These types of effects are not part of the regulatory assessments for pesticides (which mainly consider carcinogenicity andneurodevelopmental effects).

• The purpose of the comparing glyphosate to caffeine in this article is to explore how these toxicity metrics are calculated and we perceive risk differently forchemicals that we are completely comfortable.

• An important take home from this piece is that our risk tolerance is often affected by things unrelated to actual risks. Is exposure to the hazard within ourcontrol? Does the risk involve our children? Our perception of risk from things we cannot control and from things that involve our children is greatlyexaggerated.

• Another important take home is that toxicity metrics (acute or chronic) are not measures of risk. The are a benchmark of what level of exposure is deemed tobe minimally risky. Risk assessment involves comparing actual (or potential) exposures to those benchmarks to determine if a risk exists.

• For more on hazards, risks and risk perception, I’d encourage you to read the Risk in Perspective series that I co-wrote with Iida Ruishalme. You can find it on SciMoms and Thoughtscapism.

http://fafdl.org/blog/2017/04/13/glyphosate-vs-caffeine-acute-and-chronic-toxicity-assessments-explained/Created with PrintWhatYouLike.com21

ORDINANCE 2019-01

AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF WHEELER, ESTABLISHING RULES, AND REPEALING ALL PREVIOUS PLANNING

COMMISSION ORDINANCES & HEARING PROCEDURES.

THE CITY OF WHEELER ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section1. Repeal. City of Wheeler Ordinance #76-01 and Ordinance 97-05 shall each be repealed in their entirety. Further, all prior Ordinances and Resolutions, including Resolution 95-03, pertaining to the Planning Commission, which are in conflict with the provisions herein, are repealed in their entirety. Section 2. Policy. The City intends this Ordinance to establish and set duties of a Planning Commission to assist the Council in planning for the orderly growth and development of the City and to further legislative policies of the State as shown in ORS Chapter 227. Section 3. Membership. The Planning Commission shall consist of not less than five (5) or more than nine (9) members, excluding the non-voting members. Membership shall be limited to residents of the City, residents of the Urban Growth Area, and non-residents who own property or a business that operates within the City or its Urban Growth Area. No more than two (2) members of the Planning Commission may reside outside the City limits of Wheeler. No more than two (2) members of the Planning Commission may be City officers, who shall serve as ex-officio nonvoting members. No more than two (2) voting members may engage principally in the buying, selling, or developing of real estate for profit as individuals or be members or officers of any business entity that engages principally in the buying, selling or developing of real estate or profit. No more than two (2) members shall be engaged in the same kind of occupation, business, trade or profession. A majority of members of the Commission, including the Chair, constitutes a quorum. The Commission may make and alter rules and regulations for its government and procedures consistent with laws of the State of Oregon and with the City Charter and Ordinances. Section 4. Term. The term length of each Planning Commission position shall be four years. The Planning Commission Chair shall appropriately stagger the term ending dates of the current Planning Commissioners, and a Commissioner whose term has expired may apply for the same position on the Commission.

22

Section 5. Officers. The Planning Commission shall elect officers at its first meeting held in each calendar year. There shall be a Chair, a Vice-Chair and a Secretary. Each shall hold office for one year or until a successor is elected. Officer terms can have an extension beyond four years, with the approval of the City Council. The Planning Commission is encouraged to ensure that each member can perform the position of Chair and Vice-Chair and to rotate these leadership positions every four years. Section 6. Vacancies. The office of a member of the City Planning Commission becomes vacant immediately, upon any of the following events occurring: death, adjudicated incompetence, and recall from office or written resignation. Upon a majority vote of the City Planning Commission, a vacancy may be declared in the following cases: Absence of a member for two consecutive meetings without the consent of the members of the Planning Commission, or ceasing to meet the Planning Commission membership requirements in section 3 above, or ceasing to be a qualified elector under State law. Any person wishing to be a member of the Planning Commission shall complete an application that will be reviewed by the City Council which will confirm or deny that application. The newly appointed member’s term begins immediately upon the appointment and continues until the expiration of the term of the position being filled. Section 7. Meetings. The Planning Commission will normally meet once per month for the purpose of responding to a land use application or to undertake Section 9, Powers and Duties, outlined in this Ordinance. A proposed schedule of meetings will generally be approved by the Planning Commission at its first meeting held in each calendar year. Meeting dates are subject to change or cancellation consistent with public meeting laws. The City Council may request that the Planning Commission provide a report or recommendation about a specific topic or may request that the Planning Commission to table any topic, except for land use applications. To facilitate citizen involvement, a citizen can submit a topic in writing or in person for discussion that is consistent with the Section 9, Powers and Duties, in this Ordinance, provided however, that the Commission shall make a determination as to whether or not they will address that topic. Section 8. Report to the Council To facilitate an ongoing communication between the Planning Commission and City Council, the Planning Commission shall provide the agenda and minutes of each Planning Commission meeting to the City Council. The Planning Commission shall be responsible for keeping the City

23

Council advised of pending public hearings or other matters which will require decisions of the City Council. Section 9. Powers and Duties. The powers and duties of the Planning Commission shall be as follows: A. Recommend and make suggestions to the Council concerning the laying out, widening,

extending, and locating of public thoroughfares, parking of vehicles, relief of traffic congestion, betterment of housing and sanitation conditions and establishment of districts for limiting the use, height, area, bulk and other characteristics of buildings and structures relating to land development.

B. Recommend plans for regulating future growth, development and beautification of the

City in respect to its public and private buildings and works, streets, parks, grounds and vacant lots, and plans consistent with future growth and development of the City in order to secure to the City and its inhabitants sanitation, proper service of public utilities, including appropriate public incentives for overall energy conservation.

C. Do and perform all other acts and things necessary or proper to carry out provisions of

ORS Chapter 227 and the requests of the City Council as they relate to the Planning and Zoning within the City jurisdiction.

D. Conduct public hearings and make quasi-judicial land use decisions as may be properly

before it. E. Study and propose such measures as are advisable for the promotion of the public

interest, health, morals, safety, comfort, convenience and welfare of the City and in the City’s Urban Growth Boundary, and to this end work with and participate in discussions with the City Council, the State, regulatory agencies, with the City Councils and Planning Commissions and Councils of neighboring Cities and Counties.

Section 10. Review. All subdivisions, partitions, street vacations and street improvement requests and all plans or plats for vacating or laying out, widening, extending or locating streets shall be submitted to the Planning Commission prior to submission to the City Council. The Planning Commission shall consider all proposals within timelines required by law. The Planning Commission shall submit to the City Council a recommendation for approval or denial supported by findings of fact that address the applicable criteria and any other recommendations deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Section 11. Preparation of Ordinances or Amendments.

24

The Planning Commission may prepare, on its own motion or at the request of the City Council, such Ordinances or amendments to as may be considered necessary to promote the orderly growth and development of the City. All such Ordinances or amendments shall be considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing before submission of such Ordinance for City Council consideration for approval. Section 12. Budget and Expenditures. A budget necessary to support the activities of the Planning Commission shall be provided by the City Council. The City Manager shall manage the contract with the City Planner and will determine the appropriateness of suggested expenditures. Section 13. Oregon Statewide Planning Goal One: Citizen Involvement. The City Council may schedule an annual meeting with the Planning Commission for the purpose to review the consistency of Planning Commission performance with Oregon Statewide Planning Goal One Citizen Involvement and the Wheeler Comprehensive Plan. PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council this ____ day of __________, 2019 and APPROVED by the Mayor this ____ day of __________, 2019. CITY COUNCIL WHEELER, OREGON Aye Nay Absent/Abstain _________________________ ___ ___ ___/___ Heidi Stacks, President _________________________ ___ ___ ___/___ Dave Bell, Councilor _________________________ ___ ___ ___/___ Jim King, Councilor _________________________ ___ ___ ___/___ Dawn Sea Kahrs, Councilor _________________________ ___ ___ ___/___ Jay Verburg, Councilor

25

______________________________ ATTEST: Stevie S. Burden, Mayor _____________________ DATE: __________________________ Juliet Hyams, City Manager

26

PROCEDURE FOR LEGISLATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING

1. Chairman states: “I now open the public hearing for Legislative Proposal ____________. Testimony and arguments must be directed toward the applicable criteria identified in the staff report or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which the person believes to apply to the decision. The City staff report for this public hearing was available seven days prior to the hearing. This public hearing will follow the procedures provided in the document entitled ‘The Final Bylaws for the Wheeler Oregon Planning Commission’ (hereinafter “Bylaws”). Wheeler Zoning Ordinance states that all public hearings shall follow these bylaws. Copies of the City Staff Report and the Bylaws are available tonight. The record of this proposal has been and is available for review upon request.”

2. Chairman states: “It is the duty of the Wheeler Planning Commission to be fair, impartial

and preserve due-process for all participating in this hearing. Please avoid cumulative, repetitious, immaterial, or derogatory testimony. I may impose limits on oral presentations if I determine that is necessary. I do this so there is time for any participant to have rebuttal for another’s presentation.

3. Chairman states: “Does any person have an objection to the jurisdiction of the Planning

Commission to hold a hearing for this proposal” (If yes, ask for the participant to state the objection. The Planning Commission will deliberate and vote.)

4. Chairman states: “Does any Planning Commissioner wish to abstain from the hearing, or

have a conflict of interest, or personal bias to declare?” (If yes, ask the member to state whether they are able to remain impartial.)

Disqualification: The member shall join the audience if the member has a direct or substantial interest in

the proposal, a relative (by blood relation, adoption or marriage) who has or will have a direct or indirect financial interest within the past or future two year period; the member has a direct private interest in the proposal; or if the member cannot remain impartial.

5. Chairman states: “Does any person have an objection to any member of the hearing body

to participate in the public hearing for this proposal?” (If yes, ask for the participation to state the objection, the Planning Commission will deliberate and vote. The Commissioner who is the subject of the objection may not participate in the deliberation. See Disqualification above)

6. Chairman asks the City Manager to state the applicable criteria: “The City Manager will

now state the applicable criteria identified in the City Staff Report.”

27

7. TESTIMONY (a) Ask for any Federal Government Testimony or Correspondence (b) State Government (c) Local and or other units of Government (d) Citizens and Interest Groups 8. Ask for any rebuttal of presentations. 9. Ask Planning Commission if they have any questions regarding presentations or

correspondence. 10. Ask participants if they have any questions of any presentations. 11. STATE: Requests to continue the hearing do not need to be observed, but they Planning

Commission may continue this hearing as needed. If the continuance is to a date, time and place certain, no new notice is required.

12. If not continued: Close the hearing for testimony and open Planning Commission discussion. If during

discussion the Planning Commission needs clarification of any presentation they may ask the participant. However rebuttal of the clarification needs to be allowed.

13. Continue public hearing to a date certain. Motion can include request for additional

information, evidence or testimony or the notification of persons who the Commission feel should be notified of the application. The time and date when the hearing is to resume shall be announced.

Or

Motion and second 14. Deliberation, amendments to motion (if any). 15. Vote on a recommendation Form of motion on legislative decision

28

- Recommend to the City Council approval of the Proposal

“I move that, based on the findings of fact and recommendations presented in the Staff report dated __________, (as amended by the Planning Commission) and testimony received at the hearing tonight, the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council hold a public hearing and approve proposal.

Or

- Table proposal to a day uncertain a new public hearing with notification will be required.

Or

- Recommend to the City Council non-approval of the proposal, state reason why. If a City Council hearing state: The decision of the City Council may be appealed by a party to the hearing by filing an application for appeal with the City Recorder within 15 days of the date that the final order is signed.

29

PROCEDURE FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING

1. Chairman states: “I now open the public hearing for Application Number: ____________. Testimony and arguments must be directed toward the applicable criteria identified in the staff report or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which the person believes to apply to the decision. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the board based on that issue. The City staff report for this public hearing was available seven days prior to the hearing. This public hearing will follow the procedures provided in the document entitled ‘The Final Bylaws for the Wheeler Oregon Planning Commission’ (hereinafter “Bylaws”). Wheeler Zoning Ordinance states that all public hearings shall follow these bylaws. Copies of the City Staff Report and the Bylaws are available tonight. The record of this application has been and is available for review upon request.”

2. Chairman states: “It is the duty of the Wheeler Planning Commission to be fair, impartial,

and preserve due-process for all participating in this hearing. Please avoid cumulative, repetitious, immaterial, or derogatory testimony. I may impose limits on oral presentations if I determine that it is necessary.”

3. Chairman states: “Does any person have an objection to the jurisdiction of the Planning

Commission to hold a hearing for this application?” (If yes, ask for the participant to state the objection. The Planning Commission will deliberate and vote.)

4. Chairman states: “Does any Planning Commissioner wish to abstain from the hearing, or

have a conflict of interest, personal bias, or ex-parte contact to declare?” (If yes, ask the member to state whether they are able to remain impartial.)

Disqualification: The member shall join the audience if the member has a direct or substantial interest in

the proposal, a relative (by blood relation, adoption or marriage) who has or will have a direct or indirect financial interest within the past or future two year period; the member has a direct private interest in the proposal; or if the member cannot remain impartial.

5. Chairman states: “Does any person have an objection to any member of the hearing body

to participate in the public hearing for this application?” (If yes, ask for the participant to state the objection, the Planning Commission will deliberate and vote. The Commissioner who is the subject of the objection may not participate in the deliberation. See Disqualification above)

30

6. Chairman asks the City Planner to state the applicable criteria: “The City Planner will now state the applicable criteria identified in the City Staff Report.”

7. “The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by a party to the hearing by

filing an application for appeal with the City within 15 days of the date that the final order is signed.”

8. Testifying instructions – Chair states the following: “If you are testifying please state

your name, residence address and full mailing address. If you wish to be notified of a decision, continuance, appeal, or other action on this application, print your name and your complete mailing address on the form at the back of the room.”

9. Chair asks City Recorder to read the Application Information a. Name of Applicant / Property Owner: b. Type of Application requested: c. Location of Request: (Address) (Legal Description) (Tax Map and Lot) d. Number of property owners notified: c. Number written response received: 10. Chairman asks the City Planner to provide the Staff Report and Recommendations for

Findings of Fact: “The City Planner will now provide the Staff Report and recommendations for findings of fact.”

11. Chair asks staff for any written Correspondence received 12. Chair asks for the Applicant’s Presentation (Burden of Proof is upon the Applicant) 13. Chair asks for Planning Commission questions to the applicant 14. Chair asks participants for neutral testimony which can include questions to staff, the

Planning Commission, or the applicant 15. Chair asks participants for Testimony in Favor of the Application 16. Chair asks participants for Testimony against the Application 17. Chair asks the Applicant for any Rebuttal Presentation 18. Chair asks participants for Rebuttal arguments by those ‘in Favor’

31

19. Chair asks participants for Rebuttal arguments by those ‘Against’ 20. Chair asks participants for final questions or testimony which can be directed to the

Applicant, Staff, the Planning Commission and the Public 21. Chair asks the Planning Commission for Questions to Applicant, Staff, and Public 22. Chair asks the Applicant for final comments 23. Chair asks for Final Staff Discussion, Comments and Recommendations 24. Chair asks for Commission Discussion before the hearing is closed. If during this discussion additional testimony or evidence is introduced, the Chair shall

allow the applicant and all parties (for, against, and neutral) the opportunity to also provide testimony.

25. The Chair states: “The applicant has seven days to submit final written comments, but no

new evidence or testimony, in support of Application. The applicant may waive that right at this time. Do you want to waive the right to keep the record open and to submit final written comments or arguments (but no new evidence or testimony)?”

NOTE: After the public hearing is closed, no additional testimony or evidence may be introduced without advertising for a new public hearing. It is important to ensure that all testimony is completed before closing the hearing.

a. motion to continue the public hearing for Application #__________ to _________

(at least 7 days from today) in order to notify other persons, to gather information or evidence. Chair asks that applicant if he / she agrees to the continuance (agreement will stop the 120 day clock for the continuance period).

b. motion to keep record for Application #__________ open until __________ (at

least 7 days) for the applicant to submit additional written comments arguments but no new testimony or evidence. (This continuance is requested by the applicant and the time of continuance will not be counted in the 120 days required to decision).

***********************

32

CONTINUE / LEAVE THE RECORD OPEN: If the motion was to either continue the hearing or keep the record open, nothing more is done now. 26. CLOSE HEARING:

If the motion was to close the hearing in preparation for a decision, the Chair states: “The Public Hearing for Application #__________ is now closed. “ Commission proceeds with the steps below. FORM OF MOTION QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISION:

27. Motion & Second (with Findings of Fact of Condition) to: - approve - approve with conditions - deny The motion to approve or deny should be of the following form: APPROVE

“I move that, based on the findings of fact and recommendations presented in the Staff report dated _________, (or as amended by the Planning Commission) and testimony received at the hearing tonight, the Planning Commission approve Application ________. OR APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS “I move that, based on the findings of fact and recommendations presented in the Staff report dated __________, (as amended by the Planning Commission) and testimony received at the hearing tonight, the Planning Commission approves Application _______ with conditions recommended by the staff report (as amended by the Planning Commission as follows:)” OR DENY I move that based on the findings of fact and recommendation presented in the staff report dated _________ and testimony received at the hearing tonight, the Planning Commission denies application __________. State the reason why.

33

City of Wheeler – City Council – Oath of Office Wheeler City Council members serve a four year term. It has been established that this term begins and ends on the day of the taking of Oath, and begins with the vacating of the seat by the previous councilmember when the Oath is taken by the new member. This occurs at the first council meeting in a new year following a general election. Per City of Wheeler Ordinance No. 2004-04, Section 2. Clause 2.2: Regular Meetings: The Council shall meet regularly on the third Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. within the City of Wheeler. Thus, the swearing in and taking of Oath on this 15th Day of January, 2019 is in accordance with Wheeler Ordinance 2004-04, as prescribed for by City of Wheeler Charter Chapter IV, Sections 12 and 13. At Large Candidates: Having received a majority of votes in the Tillamook County General Election, as held in November 2018, at large candidates present themselves for the position of Wheeler City Councilor. Pursuant to City of Wheeler Charter Chapter III, Section 10, “The term of office of an elective officer who is elected at a general election begins after taking the oath of office or affirming at the first Council meeting of the year immediately after the election and continues until the successor to the office assumes the office.” The City Manager Pursuant to the Constitution of Oregon: 2018 Version, Article XV, Section 3. Oaths of office, now hereby swears in the following candidates for the position of Wheeler City Councilor: 1). Jim King

2). Dawn Sea Kahrs

CITY OF WHEELER, OATH OF OFFICE

Do you (candidates name), solemnly swear that you will support the Constitutions of the United States of America and of the State of Oregon, and the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Wheeler, Oregon; and that you will faithfully perform the duties of the office of Councilor of the City of Wheeler, to the best of your ability, with impartiality and fairness, during your term in office to which you were elected November 2018 and sworn in January 15, 2019? I (state your name), do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and of the State of Oregon, and the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Wheeler, Oregon; and that I will faithfully perform the duties of the office of Councilor of the City of Wheeler, to the best of my ability, with impartiality and fairness, during my term in office to which I was elected November 2018 and sworn in January 15, 2019.

34

ORDINANCE 2019-02 AN ORDINANCE FOR ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY FROM THE CITY LIMITS INTO THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY OF TERRITORY THAT MEETS THE CRITERIA OF OREGON REVISED STATUTES CHAPTER 222 CITY BOUNDARY CHANGES; MERGERS; CONSOLIDATIONS; WITHDRAWALS SECTION 222.127 (2) BY AN ORDINANCE THAT CONTAINS A DESCRIPTION OF THE TERRITORY TO BE ANNEXED. THE CITY OF WHEELER ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Wheeler determines that the territory described in this ordinance meets the criteria described in Oregon Revised Statute 222.127(2) cited herein.

Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 222 City Boundary Changes; Mergers; Consolidations; Withdrawals

222.127 Annexation without election notwithstanding contrary city law upon petition of all owners of land; declaration of annexation (1) This section applies to a city whose laws require a petition proposing annexation of territory to be submitted to the electors of the city. (2) Notwithstanding a contrary provision of the city charter or a city ordinance, upon receipt of a petition proposing annexation of territory submitted by all owners of land in the territory, the legislative body of the city shall annex the territory without submitting the proposal to the electors of the city if: (a) The territory is included within an urban growth boundary adopted by the city or Metro, as defined in ORS 197.015; (b) The territory is, or upon annexation of the territory into the city will be, subject to the acknowledged comprehensive plan of the city; (c) At least one lot or parcel within the territory is contiguous to the city limits or is separated from the city limits only by a public right of way or a body of water; and (d) The proposal conforms to all other requirements of the city’s ordinances. (3) The territory to be annexed under this section includes any additional territory described in ORS 222.111 (1) that must be annexed in order to locate infrastructure and right of way access for services necessary for development of the territory described in subsection (2) of this section at a density equal to the average residential density within the annexing city. (4) When the legislative body of the city determines that the criteria described in subsection (2) of this section apply to territory proposed for annexation, the legislative body may declare that the territory described in subsections (2) and (3) of this section is annexed to the city by an ordinance that contains a description of the territory annexed. [2016 c.51 §2] Section 2. The territory requested for annexation under ORS 222.127 is identified with findings of compliance with ORS 222.127(2). Section 3. Original Wheeler Block 72 Lots 2-3 and Lots 10-11. (a) The territory is included within an urban growth boundary adopted by the city as defined in ORS 197.015. (b) The territory is subject to the Wheeler Comprehensive Plan. (c) The territory is contiguous to the City Limits.

35

(d) The proposal conforms to all requirements of the City’s ordinances. Section 4. Original Wheeler Block 43 Lots 1-5 and 8-12. (a) The territory is included within an urban growth boundary adopted by the city as defined in ORS 197.015. (b) The territory is subject to the Wheeler Comprehensive Plan. (c) The territory is contiguous to the City Limits. (d) The proposal conforms to all requirements of the City’s ordinances. Section 5. Property of Record described by Tillamook County, Oregon Survey Record B-2819. (a) The territory is included within an urban growth boundary adopted by the city as defined in ORS 197.015. (b) The territory is subject to the Wheeler Comprehensive Plan. (c) The territory is contiguous to the City Limits. (d) The proposal conforms to all requirements of the City’s ordinances. Section 6. Severability. The invalidity of a section or subsection of this ordinance shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections or subsections. ADOPTED by the City Council this 19th day of February, 2019 by the following vote: CITY COUNCIL WHEELER, OREGON AYE NAY ABSENT / ABSTAIN ___________________________________ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ Heidi Stacks, President ___________________________________ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ Dave Bell, Councilor ___________________________________ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ Jim King, Councilor ___________________________________ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ Dawn Sea Kahrs, Councilor ___________________________________ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ Jay Verburg, Councilor

__________________________________ ________________________________ Juliet Hyams, City Manager ATTEST: Stevie S. Burden, Mayor ________________________________ DATE:

36

37

38

39

CITY OF WHEELER, OREGON 775 Nehalem Blvd, P.O. Box 177, Wheeler, OR 97147

Telephone: (503) 368-5767 / Fax: (503) 368-4273 Website: www.ci.wheeler.or.us / Email: cityofwheeler@nehalemtel.net

City Planner Sabrina Pearson Analysis: Ordinance 2019-02 ORS 222.127 Annexation Page 1 of 3

CITY COUNCIL REPORT Council Meeting Date: February 19, 2019 To: City of Wheeler, Oregon City Council From: Sabrina Pearson, City Planner for the City of Wheeler, Oregon Regarding: Ordinance 2019-02 for ORS 222.127 Annexation REQUEST The City of Wheeler has received three applications for development in the City Urban Growth Boundary for property that is contiguous to the City Limits. STATEMENT OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA AGAINST WHICH THE PROPOSAL WAS REVIEWED ORS 227.178 Title “Final action on certain applications required within 120 days; procedure; exceptions; refund of fees” and 227.179 Title “Petition of writ of mandamus authorized when city fails to take final action on land use application within 120 days; jurisdiction; notice of petition” specify the time limits within which the governing body is required to process applications. Link: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors227.html In summary ORS 227.178 requires the governing body to identify any incomplete information within 30 days of the receipt of any incomplete documentation and to issue a final decision 120 days from the date of a complete application or within 120 days from day 31 after the application was received if the application has not been deemed incomplete. The 120 days shall include the resolution of all local appeals, in the City of Wheeler this requires time for public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council with a 15-day appeal period for each and a 20-day mailed notice. Meanwhile, The City of Wheeler Urban Growth Management Agreement signed by the City of Wheeler and Tillamook County Commissioners and recorded on October 25, 2010 provides governance of Wheeler Urban Growth Boundary properties to the City of Wheeler. This agreement transfers Urban Growth Boundary governance authority to the City of Wheeler that includes the ORS 227.178 time limit compliant processing of all applications and appeals. And, The City of Wheeler Comprehensive Plan Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services Policy 1 and Goal 14 Urbanization Policy 4 both read:

40

CITY OF WHEELER, OREGON 775 Nehalem Blvd, P.O. Box 177, Wheeler, OR 97147

Telephone: (503) 368-5767 / Fax: (503) 368-4273 Website: www.ci.wheeler.or.us / Email: cityofwheeler@nehalemtel.net

City Planner Sabrina Pearson Analysis: Ordinance 2019-02 ORS 222.127 Annexation Page 2 of 3

“Annexation shall be required prior to City approval of development”. While the City of Wheeler Charter states that a request for annexation shall be presented to the electors of the city: The Oregon Legislature enacted ORS 222.127 citation (2016) which reads: ORS 222.127 Title: “Annexation without election notwithstanding contrary city law upon petition of all owners of land; declaration of annexation” states, "(1) this section applies to a City whose laws require a petition proposing annexation of territory to be submitted to the electors of a city. (2) Notwithstanding a contrary provision of the city charter or a city ordinance, upon receipt of a petition proposing annexation of territory submitted by all owners of land in the territory, the legislative body of the city shall annex the territory without submitting the proposal to the electors of the city if: (a) the territory is included within a urban growth boundary adopted by the city or Metro as defined in ORS 197.015; (b) the territory is, or upon annexation of the territory will be, subject to the acknowledged comprehensive plan of the city; (c) at least one lot or parcel within the territory is contiguous to the city limits or is separated from the city limits only by a public right of way or a body of water; and (d) the proposal conforms to all other requirements of the city’s ordinances. (4) When the legislative body of the city determines that the criteria described in subsection (2) of this section apply to territory proposed for annexation, the legislative body may declare that the territory is annexed to the city by an ordinance that contains a description of the territory annexed." [2016 c.51 Section 2]. Link: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors222.html FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The City has three sets of application property owners that are required by the City of

Wheeler Comprehensive Plan Goal 11 Policy 1 and Urbanization Policy 4 to complete annexation prior to City approval of development.

2. ORS 227.127 requires the city to annex by ordinance property eligible for annexation under

ORS 222.127(2) when written petitions are received by the property owners without submitting the question to the electors of the City even though required by the City Charter.

3. Three sets of property owners have submitted written petitions to annex under ORS 222.127. 4. As this is an application approval requirement, the City is required to process the requests

within the time limits required by ORS 227.178.

41

CITY OF WHEELER, OREGON 775 Nehalem Blvd, P.O. Box 177, Wheeler, OR 97147

Telephone: (503) 368-5767 / Fax: (503) 368-4273 Website: www.ci.wheeler.or.us / Email: cityofwheeler@nehalemtel.net

City Planner Sabrina Pearson Analysis: Ordinance 2019-02 ORS 222.127 Annexation Page 3 of 3

5. An ordinance is presented for City Council approval to complete annexation of these three properties under ORS 222.127 within the time limits required by ORS 227.178.

42

43